Politician takes money from Monsanto, and part of "Forbes" magazine's content is paid advertorial
Ever wondered why "Forbes" magazine publishes so many vitriolic attacks on those who threaten the interests of the GMO industry – for example, Jon Entine's attacks on Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/30/does-the-seralini-corn-study-fiasco-mark-a-turning-point-in-the-debate-over-gm-food/
It may be because a portion of its content is not journalism but advertising – and comes from organizations that pay "Forbes" to post it, as item 2 below explains. The article states, "Forbes is an obvious fraud. It is not a magazine or editorial operation at all. It is just, in effect, a user comment site that allows commenters the pretense of saying they have written for Forbes. Or, even, for paid promoters to write laudatory articles for Forbes about whatever they are promoting, then to say, in further promotions, that Forbes lavishly endorses such-and-such complete baloney."
The media isn't the only sector in the US that's bought and owned by Big Biotech. A letter to the editor of a Hawaii newspaper states that a prominent Hawaii politician repeatedly took money from Monsanto – and then denied it (item 1 below).
1. Let’s break the habit of legalized bribery
2. Wolff: What is "Forbes" worth?
1. Let’s break the habit of legalized bribery
Jeff Sims
Maui Weekly, August 19, 2014
http://www.mauiweekly.com/page/content.detail/id/532769/Let-s-Break-the-Habit-of-Legalized-Bribery.html
I got the phrase "legalized bribery" from the book "End Legalized Bribery". It was written by the late Cecil L. Heftel, a businessman who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1976 to 1986 for Hawai'i's First Congressional District.
I voted for Terez Amato because she's promised to not take these legal bribes from corporations or lobbyists. Representing citizens is different than taking money and creating a conflict of interest.
In contrast, our current state senator, Roz Baker, took Monsanto company money in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Yet, on June 17, Baker made a public statement that she had not taken money from Monsanto in a number of years.
She also took money from Monsanto registered lobbyists. It's all in the public record. For example, George A. Martin offered and she took money in 2007 ($500), 2008 ($1,000), 2010 ($1,000), 2011 ($1,000), 2012 ($1,000), 2013 ($1,000) and this year ($1,000). And she took money from Frederick J. Perlak and Carol K. Riemann. At another public forum, Baker denied that a Monsanto lobbyist had organized a fundraiser for her, yet the lobbyist's name was on the invitation.
Why has Baker repeatedly mislead the public? Does she think we are not going to call her on her deception? Why has she sold out?
Jeff Sims
Lahaina
2. Wolff: What is "Forbes" worth?
Michael Wolff
USA TODAY, February 23, 2014
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/02/23/forbes-magazine-on-the-block/5684695/
Forbes magazine has put itself up for sale, and a deal is expected soon — most likely with a Chinese company called Fosun International Ltd., an investment conglomerate which likes to call itself the Berkshire Hathaway of China.
In some ways, "Forbes", at least the paper magazine, is like "Newsweek" or "Businessweek", a shadow of its former self, sold in a distressed market. "Forbes" has been offered far and wide and seemingly only attracted the serious interest of a non-publisher.
On the other hand, Forbes is no longer principally a paper magazine. Rather, it has transformed itself into a state-of-the-art digital publishing model, one that strains for traffic and revenue growth while minimizing the cost of content. Most of its "contributors" are paid nothing at all. A portion of its content, in fact, comes from organizations that pay "Forbes" to post it — and "Forbes" has been caught in several embarrassing conflicts.
Most native digital content sites (sites not just importing content from old-media properties) are doing some form of this sleight of hand, generally in a less blatant fashion than "Forbes", but all with an eye on the brutal economics of rising costs of traffic and lower advertising rates. In this storm, "Forbes"s' particular shamelessness is something of a beacon.
The Forbes sale will be another sort of bellwether, putting a price tag on the new model of editorial economics.
There has not been a significant pure-play content sale since AOL bought The Huffington Post in 2011 for $315 million. Business Insider, a fast-growing business news aggregation site with an aggressive traffic strategy, has been quietly trying to sell itself for the past few months but with no takers at its reportedly $100 million price.
Other then rumors of great wealth for traffic aggregators such as BuzzFeed, Gawker, and Upworthy, it is quite unclear what they are worth.
Forbes in print form was once worth several billion dollars. Now its magazine has, at best, nostalgic value. So reports that the new "Forbes" was hopefully looking at a $400 million or $500 million sale on the strength of its digital accomplishments have buoyed the digital content market.
Indeed, the digital journalism business has been distinguished most recently by the number of new start-ups in the field, and by well-known journalists leaving traditional brands to join new digital efforts. There is even a sense that there is a new science to digital publishing, that the code has been broken.
"Forbes" is the looking glass example of this "science". Looked at one way, by being aggressive or shameless, it has built a platform that offers the use of its brand to virtually anyone in a public commons sort of way. Thanks to the sheer volume of free content and opinions alone (and with artful top editing — i.e., headlines that encourage clicking), Forbes generates lots of low-cost traffic and views, against which low-priced advertising is sold. That's the business in a nutshell: keeping your cost of content lower and cost of traffic lower than the low rates you're getting for each view.
But looked at another way, "Forbes" is an obvious fraud. It is not a magazine or editorial operation at all. It is just, in effect, a user comment site that allows commenters the pretense of saying they have written for "Forbes". Or, even, for paid promoters to write laudatory articles for "Forbes" about whatever they are promoting, then to say, in further promotions, that "Forbes" lavishly endorses such-and-such complete baloney.
"Forbes" itself can defend what it is doing by saying publishing has always been supported by a commercial ecosystem and that within this, "Forbes" does maintain a discrete staff producing actual journalism. And, indeed, that is the defense, albeit an uneasy one, of most of the new digital content businesses: They are trying to figure out a balancing act between earnestness and shamelessness.
The balancing act, too, is between staying in and an exit.
That is, are these businesses that are trying to create commercial and editorial paths that can coexist? Do they see that as an actual possibility? Or are these businesses pushing content and traffic cost ratios to the point of absurdity, at which propitious point they sell? This could be for a desperate reason — because they do not believe there can be a legitimate editorial business within the economics of the digital world. Or it could be for merely cynical reasons — that there are lots of dumb buyers out there now.
"Forbes" has recently been dampening expectations about its sale price. Instead of $400 million or $500 million, the deal seems likely to be significantly less than that.
Then there is its reported Chinese buyer, which might appear to be more like a whale-size "Forbes" "contributor" ready to make the brand its willing mouthpiece rather than a publisher with a fine touch.
This all might seem terribly discouraging for people in the publishing business. But then again, respectability is an old model.